McCain's campaign: Bush 2.0

Josh Marshall has a post up describing the current McCain campaign as "the sleaziest, most dishonest and race-baiting campaign of our lifetimes." I'm not sure if that's true, but it is unquestionably sleazy and dishonest. What I think Marshall and others are missing, however, is the extent to which McCain's campaign builds on the precedents of the Bush White House (described in All the President's Spin) in its approach to the press and campaign communication, which is probably a result of the influence of former Bush operative Steve Schmidt.

Let's start with the media. During his presidency, Bush and other top officials have frequently challenged the legitimacy of the media and its role in the democratic process. For instance, then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card told the New Yorker "They don't represent the public any more than other people do. In our democracy, the people who represent the public stood for election... I don't believe [the press has] a check-and-balance function."

When McCain's campaign was preventing the media from interviewing Sarah Palin, campaign manager Rick Davis expressed a similar view:

Why is she scared of answering questions? [Fox News Channel's Chris] Wallace asked.

"She's not scared to answer questions," Davis said, "but you know what? We run our campaign, not the news media."

Wallace said inappropriate intrusions into Palin's family and personal life aside, there are legitimate questions about whether she is prepared to be vice president.

"Sarah Palin will have the opportinity to speak to the American people," Davis said. "She will do interviews, but she'll do them on the terms and conditions" the campaign decides.

Like Bush, McCain's campaign has also tried to undermine dissent and harsh questioning. During the same interview quoted above, Davis told Chris Wallace that Palin won't be interviewed "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference" (via Steve Benen). Demanding "deference" from the press is almost explicitly anti-democratic -- Merriam-Webster defines it as "respect and esteem due a superior or an elder; also: affected or ingratiating regard for another's wishes." An elected official has no right to expect to be treated this way by a member of the press or the public.

Finally, McCain's campaign is following Bush's lead in making a series of highly misleading claims that are often based on some slender reed of truth (see here and here for compilations). For instance, as Bob Somerby noted on the Daily Howler, Palin's claim at the GOP convention that she put the state's luxury jet on eBay was "carefully constructed" to "mislead the public without misstating the facts." The jet actually did not sell on eBay and was later sold at a loss. Palin's statement was so well constructed that it even fooled McCain, who falsely claimed she sold the plane on eBay for a profit.

Similarly, McCain's campaign is relying on Obama's vote for a Democratic budget resolution to justify its claims that he will raise income taxes on all Americans. (In fact, Obama's plan would lower income taxes on most Americans by more than McCain's would.) The key to this strategy is to exploit the norms of "objective" reporting, which require a "he said"/"she said" approach even when disputes concern questions of fact.

What's incredible is how much McCain has been able to get away with in what seemed like a Democratic year. I have always attributed much of Bush's success at spinning the press in the 2001-2004 period to his post-9/11 boost in stature and legitimacy. McCain does not enjoy the same advantage and yet his tactics are still (seemingly) working. When will the press start calling him out?

Update 9/11 11:21 PM: The irony is that "objective" analysts like NBC's Chuck Todd and Time's Mark Halperin, who have not exactly been at the vanguard of the movement for more aggressive fact-checking, are drawing the line at the absurd "lipstick" controversy. While it's great to have them on board, where were they for the last eight years? What we're seeing now is the culmination of a process that they previously ignored.

Comments

[Rob]

Bush 2.0? Way to adopt the Obama campaign's transparent attempt to tie McCain to an unpopular President, Brendan. Wouldn't it have been enough simply to criticize the McCain campaign's tactics without using Obama's "Bush-McCain" spin? But far be it from me to prevent you from showing respect and deference to Senator Obama. And enjoy your stay In The Tank.

[David]

Brendan complains that the governor's jet plane actually did not sell on eBay and was later sold at a loss. That's carping. The important point is: She got rid of the governor's jet. By willingly giving up the convenience and prestige of flying on her own plane, she saved her taxpayers a mint. Maintaining a jet plane, including fuel, pilots, service, etc., is enormously expensive.

This point hit me because several years ago a new CEO of my company came in promising various economies, including getting rid of the corporate jets. However, after he was installed in office, he changed his mind and kept both of them.

[MartyB]

Several things Brendan.

First, the link you provide in "McCain's campaign is relying on Obama's vote " mentions nothing about this issue. Perhaps you meant to point to a different story.

Second, I don’t understand what is so radical about the saying the media doesn't "represent the public any more than other people do.... I don't believe [the press has] a check-and-balance function." This statement appears obviously true to me since "the media" are just another industry/interest group. Sometimes they might perform a watchdog role, but so do other interest groups. The media just had a more efficient mode of disseminating information (at least until recently with the advent of the web). If any campaign doesn’t want to work with them for whatever reason, they have that right, even though they face the risk of it backfiring against them.

Third, I notice you drop the word “respect” and concentrated on the definition of “deference”. Despite your reputation for decrying spin, this seems awfully convenient to imply the McCain campaign feels they should be “deferred to” as some sort of superior when another meaning of the term “respect and deference”, which seems obvious given the media trashing of Palin’s family and life prior to her convention speech, is simply “respect”.

As for “McCain's campaign is following Bush's lead in making a series of highly misleading claims that are often based on some slender reed of truth”, I’ll disregard for the moment whether the “eBay” example is really misleading and simply note this behavior has been true for all politicians and every campaign I’ve ever seen witnessed (including Obama’s). Politicians always present the slice of truth that paints them in the best light and then hope no-one looks at the other side of the coin. Unfortunately, you appear to call Republicans more frequently on these types of infractions than you do Democrats, while it appears to me both sides behave similarly.

I look forward to your thoughts on what you call in another post “bogus” lipstick controversy.

[Brendan Nyhan]

RE: MartyB above -- I put in the wrong link of the two Washington Post links in the previous paragraph. It's now fixed above; thanks for letting me know it was wrong.

[David]

The scare quotes around "objective" would seem to imply that Brendan thinks Todd and Halperin tilt to the right. But, his next comment seems to imply that their lack of objectivity consists of tilting left, but not far enough left.

I actually agree with Brendan that the the lipstick controversy is silly. But, I wish Brendan had been equally forthright in pointing out the silliness of the "Barney Fag" controversy a few years ago. Tbe Dems are reaping what they sowed.

[Jinchi]

Second, I don’t understand what is so radical about the saying the media doesn't "represent the public any more than other people do.... I don't believe [the press has] a check-and-balance function."

The radical idea was that the McCain campaign had decided the media was biased and didn't see any need to find other means to demonstrate Sarah Palin's qualifications for the Vice Presidency. She wasn't going to town hall meetings and taking questions from people directly. She wasn't putting out reams of papers stating her position on the war, the economy, civil liberties or more importantly, just what she'd change if she was in office.

Palin's qualifications are in question because nobody really knows what she stands for or how capable she is at governing. There are a lot of ways she could communicate with the voters. But she has to at least pick one.

[ZacC]

I'm not entirely certain why Marshall and Nyhan are taking special pains to categorize the Bush/McCain campaign as sleazy and dishonest (however correct that may be) while giving the Obama campaign a relative free pass. This omission is particularly strange since Nyhan usually takes special care to note when both sides of the political aisle are engaging in the same dishonest behavior (see his recent post "Campaign Smear"). Has Nyhan forgotten his own recent criticisms of the smears of the Obama campaign, such as McCain supposedly advocating "100 years of war in Iraq"?

Should we assume, then, that the Obama campaign is running, comparatively speaking, a predominantly clean and honest campaign? If he is, then he really is a new kind of politician.